[…]ComplaintsDuring
the period covered by this bulletin (30 January 2012 to 31 January 2013), there
were 6,417 complaints recorded relating to completed requests made. The
majority of the complaints came from tribunals (4,050 complaints, 63 per cent),
with the most common reason for complaint being that the interpreter was late
getting to the assignment (970 complaints, 24 per cent of complaints from
tribunals). At criminal courts and prisons, the most common reason for
complaint was that there was no interpreter available (35 per cent of
complaints by these requesters).

The
complaint rate (the number of complaints divided by the number of completed
requests) has increased between August 2012 and January 2013

Tuesday, 26 March 2013

Interpreter company wins costs order appealThe
company contracted by the Ministry of Justice to provide court interpreters has
won an appeal against a decision to award a third-party costs order after a
sentencing hearing was adjourned due an interpreter’s non-appearance.In the
Court of Appeal yesterday, the president of the Queen’ Bench Division Sir John
Thomas ruled that a single ‘isolated failure’ to provide an interpreter did not
amount to ‘serious misconduct’ and that a third-party costs order of £23.25 by
Judge Kelson in the Crown court should not have been made.The MoJ
contract awarded to Applied Language Solutions, now Capita Translation and
Interpreting, (CTI) to provide court interpreters began in January last year.
It has been the subject of three critical parliamentary and audit reports for
its failure to meet performance targets and for failings in the initial
procurement process.The Court
of Appeal case concerned a sentencing hearing at Sheffield Crown Court in April
last year, which Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service requested a Slovak
interpreter to attend.The day
before the hearing, the sentencing was rescheduled to an earlier time, but the
interpreter was not told. The hearing was adjourned due to their
non-attendance, and Judge Kelson subsequently made a third-party costs order in
favour of prosecuting counsel in the sum of half of their hearing fee - £23.25.Kelson
found that CTI did not do its job properly as a result of negligence. He said
that the appellant had a major responsibility and that courts should not have
their time wasted.However
the Court of Appeal overturned his decision, saying that a ‘single failure’
cannot, when ‘viewed in isolation’, amount to ‘serious misconduct’.In this
case, it found ‘there was no evidence that the failure was anything other than
an isolated failure’ and that ‘there was no evidence of a number of other
previous failures by the interpreter in question or failures in the appellant's
system’.But it
said that serious misconduct might arise if there was evidence that the
non-attendance resulted from a ‘failure to remedy a defect in the appellant's
administrative systems which had caused non-attendance in the past’, or where a
particular interpreter had a history of non-attendance.The court
concluded that a court should not generally make an order ‘without clear
evidence of serious misconduct’ or ‘unless there are unusual circumstances
which justify the making of an order’.Thomas
noted: ‘Although the sum in issue in this appeal was only £23.25, it raised an
important point as to the circumstances in which a court could exercise its
power to make a third-party costs order where a private contractor has been
given the responsibility of performing duties hitherto performed by the state.’In the
course of the judgment he observed: ‘Having efficient systems and good and
reliable interpreters is expensive. A contractor cannot be allowed to maximise
its profit or reduce its loss in the context of court proceedings by not having
in place the best systems and the best interpreters. It cannot transfer its
costs of failing to do so to the CPS or the defence.’Rejecting
CTI’s argument that it was obliged to provide interpreters in only 98% of
bookings – its contractual performance target - Thomas said CTI is providing
‘an integral part of the state’s obligations’ and it must discharge that duty. He said:
‘The provision of an interpreter where either a witness or a defendant does not
speak English (or Welsh), is essential. Without one a case cannot proceed.‘It is
simply no use to a court having an interpreter there on 98% of occasions when
interpreters are required, because if an interpreter is required justice cannot
be done without one and a case cannot proceed. An interpreter is required on
100% of such occasions.’Courts
minister Helen Grant said: ‘There has been a dramatic improvement in the
interpreter contract since the early months, with the vast majority of bookings
now being completed and a major reduction in complaints. Our changes have saved
taxpayers £15m this year.‘We are
aware performance dipped very slightly this January when changes were made to
interpreters' travel allowances and we are taking steps with the contractor to
address this and drive further improvement.’

Monday, 25 March 2013

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what
estimate he has made of the savings to his Department as a result of the
implementation of the ALS/Capita contract for court translation and
interpreting services.

Helen Grant (Maidstone and The
Weald, Conservative)

The estimate of savings under the language services
call-off contract with Capita is based on the pre-contract spend of
approximately £30 million each year. This covers courts, tribunals and the National
Offender Management Service.

The savings in the first year of the contract's
operation are estimated at £15 million.

To ask
the Secretary of State for Justice if he will review (a) how many people
have been wrongly convicted and (b) the number of potentially guilty
people acquitted as a result of errors by translators employed under the ALS/Capita
contract; and if he will make a statement.

Helen
Grant (Maidstone
and The Weald, Conservative)

We have
no plan at present to undertake any review of convictions or acquittals in
interpreter court cases.

The
judiciary is responsible for ensuring that defendants get a fair hearing. If
there are any issues with interpretation the judge will stop the proceedings
and resolve those issues. The Ministry of Justice monitors performance under
the contract, which has an associated complaints system. Only a very small
proportion of complaints relate to the quality of the interpreter. We have
received no complaints that wrong convictions have been made as a result of
problems with interpreters.